Vaalingrade
Legend
People keep saying exactly what their issues are. They're not the ones ignoring things.
D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats
- Thread starter FallenRX
- Start date
W'rkncacnter
Adventurer
aura of protection is the big one. to an extent, divine health, and if we're going off your bizarre definition of "bounded accuracy" (which seems to be not what it actually is, which is avoiding the DC treadmill of e.g. 3e, but rather...some sort of...combat parity? i don't really quite understand what you were getting at), then smites as well.
there's other classes that also break bounded accuracy, too. expertise from rogues and bards (and technically also tool expertise from artificers but most tools are a meme honestly) is probably the most common example i've seen cited with how they catapult your chosen skills (or all of your tools for the artificer, but again...) into the stratosphere. archery is a relatively minor breakage of bounded accuracy...or it would be, if it didn't apply to god damn attack rolls of all things. shield doesn't even pretend to not break bounded accuracy.
Clint_L
Hero
The other thing I will add is that the perceived weakness of melee classes compared to magic classes is mostly a high level thing, isn't it? Like, from levels 1-10 spell casters seem pretty on par. After that they have enough high level spells that their tool kits are hard to keep up with, though fighters and barbarians are still right there for pure damage dealing, not to mention tanking. Until, like, level 20 and now your moon druid is just a solar or ancient dragon or something.
This has always been an issue in D&D. Back in AD&D, magic-users had to endure the grind (and it was a grind back then) to get to level 5 when they became somewhat useful, but eventually they reached God mode. If your campaign lasted three years or whatever it took to get there. 5e is way more balanced than that, but the highest levels are still pretty screwy.
This has always been an issue in D&D. Back in AD&D, magic-users had to endure the grind (and it was a grind back then) to get to level 5 when they became somewhat useful, but eventually they reached God mode. If your campaign lasted three years or whatever it took to get there. 5e is way more balanced than that, but the highest levels are still pretty screwy.
There's also the power of the Devotion Paladin to increase the attack bonus of a weapon.
Sacred Weapon. As an action, you can imbue one weapon that you are holding with positive energy, using your Channel Divinity. For 1 minute, you add your Charisma modifier to attack rolls made with that weapon (with a minimum bonus of +1). The weapon also emits bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light 20 feet beyond that. If the weapon is not already magical, it becomes magical for the duration.
Sacred Weapon. As an action, you can imbue one weapon that you are holding with positive energy, using your Channel Divinity. For 1 minute, you add your Charisma modifier to attack rolls made with that weapon (with a minimum bonus of +1). The weapon also emits bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light 20 feet beyond that. If the weapon is not already magical, it becomes magical for the duration.
EzekielRaiden
Legend
I have personally and directly experienced this problem, and people I know and trust have personally and directly experienced this problem.
Full spellcasters can either completely negate or mostly solve multiple encounters per day, especially if those encounters are a mix of both combat and non-combat. To then add to this, by your own admission, the idea that a Bladesinger should be very nearly just as good in combat when the Fighter class brings nothing* of its own to non-combat situations is, precisely and exactly, why this thread exists.
Further, you are making a non-existence claim. That, purely by logic, requires a higher standard of proof. "X can be a problem in common situations" only requires that you demonstrate that it has been a problem in a common situation at least once. "X cannot be a problem in any situation" requires that you prove substantially more. That doesn't mean it's impossible; we can prove that no largest prime number exists, for instance, which is a non-existence claim. In quantifier terms, "X can be a problem" is of the form "there exists an X...", while "X cannot be a problem" is of the form "for all X..." It is harder to prove "for all X..." claims, for the simple reason that they're talking about all Xs, not just some Xs.
Hence: it is bad logic to assert that, because a few finite cases weren't a problem, it is never a problem for anyone. Which is what I said originally. These swans are white, therefore all swans are white.
* As previously stated, universal features granted to all characters equally do not count. So the fact that Fighter gives you two skills is irrelevant, because all classes do that. Likewise, all characters get a background and a race, so those things are irrelevant for whether the Fighter gives anything for non-combat.
Last edited:
No one I have replied to has given a specific example or experience articulating the alleged problem.
Ok I would agree, aura of protection does push the limits of bounded accuracy. I would not say it knocks it out of orbit though, mostly because even with it your saves will not keep up with DCs without proficiency.
AOP combined with Arcane Deflection from a Wizard multiclass would completely destroy it though.
W'rkncacnter
Adventurer
this is a fundamental issue with 5e, honestly. the entire saving throw system is just stupid.
When, how specifically?
No one is invalidating your claims, you just are not making them. I provided descriptions of the two fighters I am playing currently where this is not a problem. That doesn't mean it has never been a problem for you, but if you are not pointing out when it has been a problem for you, then people aren't really invalidating examples when you have not really described them.
Dozens of finite cases, not a few. I have played with about 100 players in the last 5 years. I have personally played 4 fighters in the past 6 months and DMed for 2 more.
I never said it was not a problem for anyone. I said the evidence I have seen, including that large sample among other things, indicates it is not a significant problem in term of being common or widespread.
I know it exists because if it didn't people would not mention it.
Exactly all classes get a background, all classes get a race, all classes should get similar combat skills with weapons. Not exactly the same, just like the way a class uses background skills are not all exactly the same - some classes can get bonuses or expertise or spells that enhance those skills, but broadly speaking no class runs away with the skill aspect of the game so much so that other classes are irrelevant.
Last edited:
Oh I love it compared to older versions.
Saying what their issues are and offering examples or experiences are different things.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Saying you personally think the discrepancy is a good thing, actually is not confirming that the discrepancy is there, but is also just anecdotal evidence at best.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
Indeed. Low-level spells used as utility are enablers, often just giving auto-success or greater results for an ability check. As higher level spells are introduced, their capabilities start to accelerate beyond the realms of what non-spellcasters can hope to achieve. As characters get to higher levels, the more higher-level spells are freed up for utility use (since most spellcasters tend to save their highest level spells for combat.)
I have not only personally seen this issue, I have been this issue. I thought I'd play a "utility wizard", one able to support the party with a lot of useful capabilities for a T3 game. It was great fun, working out how to apply the spells I had to a situation to solve, bypass, or remove it for the party. I was pretty happy with my performance in combat as well.
I was asked to tone it down by the group and DM - I had been dominating almost all of the non-combat encounters: the other characters weren't getting their time in the spotlight, and the players were having less fun as a result.
In the end I shifted subclass to artificer to I could support the party more directly with healing and similar.
Shadowedeyes
Adventurer
My biggest issue with the feat approach is that is kinda falls back into the 3e fighter problem I had, which is that it's important to plan out your character's entire progression from the beginning. Even though I don't agree with Ecmo3 that his fighter build is a problem with making the bladesinger look bad, (On that, I don't really care. The bladesinger has full spellcasting, let me pull out a violin if he is sad that he can't fight with weapons as well as a guy who literally put all his resources into it), it is carefully crafted to utilize it effectively. There isn't room to use a cool different magical weapon found, or to invest in a skill or tool that makes sense because of the direction the campaign has gone in. It's not as bad as the 3e fighter that I had planned out feat choices through 20th level because of how feat chains worked, but it still promotes that line of thinking.
Sure but that really has nothing to do with the text you quoted which was about peoples experiences and examples being ignored or invalidated.
And anecdotal evidence is evidence.
EzekielRaiden
Legend
No, it's not—not in the way you want it to be. Anecdotal evidence is useful for existence claims. It cannot prove the kinds of things you want it to prove.
But, in this case, it has proven one thing to me: that I am wasting my time continuing to discuss it with you. So I won't do that anymore.
I think it’s fine that the game offer classes and build that need less management and thinking.
It‘s not all players who want to be the thinker and problem solver of the group, or the social face.
The game can surely add a “magical“ class that require less management and thinking. The warlock do already that job. Few spell slots, few spell known, reliable attack with Eldritch blast.
But we can imagine even fewer options, and kind of magical blaster with only one button!
Could we add more options to martial classes. Surely. The monk offer more options than a fighter-champion. We can use the monk frame to build an armored warrior. There is also the frame of the Ranger or the paladin, but we got the problem of spells that need to be translated into mundane abilities, powerful enough but still not supernatural.
The game is highly adaptable. The OP choose to add feats to martial, but there are a lot of ways to adapt the game.
It‘s not all players who want to be the thinker and problem solver of the group, or the social face.
The game can surely add a “magical“ class that require less management and thinking. The warlock do already that job. Few spell slots, few spell known, reliable attack with Eldritch blast.
But we can imagine even fewer options, and kind of magical blaster with only one button!
Could we add more options to martial classes. Surely. The monk offer more options than a fighter-champion. We can use the monk frame to build an armored warrior. There is also the frame of the Ranger or the paladin, but we got the problem of spells that need to be translated into mundane abilities, powerful enough but still not supernatural.
The game is highly adaptable. The OP choose to add feats to martial, but there are a lot of ways to adapt the game.
EzekielRaidan has a point. A good way to say this might be that anecdotal evidence is not data. Anecdotal evidence does not generalize. Anecdotal evidence is effectively self-selected polling, and does not provide a representative sample from which one can make broad claims.
It is unclear why they should have to relate their detailed experiences to you, personally and specifically. It isn't like they are demanding something from you, personally and specifically.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
that is the 5e answer... give them spells (eldritch knight) or supernatural not spells (rune knight and echo knight) or psychic not spells (psi warrior)
all of those mess with the fluff of the fighter (depending on your concept that can be good or bad) but if you want to play
the best swordsman ever that also is a bit of a gambler and grifter that tricked his way into training with the best weapon masters and now travels telling cool stories, making cover identities and exploring ruins looking for magic items and lost weapon secrets...
to a new player (or one that came from 4e only) that sounds like a charismatic fighter with some cool skill tricks and a fancy background. maybe you should multi into rogue...
the most effective way to make it so you can do it is to be a bard of valor or sword... you can refluff some spells as grifter tricks and refluff some spells into sword maneuvers.
Similar Threads
